IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Vol. 36, No.

C2, pp 195-207
Printed in The Islamic Republic of Iran, 2012
Shiraz University

ANALYTICAL SOLUTION OF SEISMIC ACTIVE LATERAL FORCE

*
IN RETAINING WALLS USING STRESS FIELDS

A.TOTONCHI1**, F. ASKARI2 AND O. FARZANEH3

1
Dept. of Civil Eng., Marvdasht Branch, Islamic Azad University, Marvdasht, I. R. of Iran
Email: Arash_Totonchi@yahoo.com
2
Iran International Earthquake Eng. Institute, Tehran, I. R. of Iran
3
Dept. of Civil Eng., Tehran University, Tehran, I. R. of Iran

I D
Abstract In this paper, application of stress fields in computation of seismic active lateral forces
on retaining walls is considered using the lower bound method of limit analysis. Finding the exact
solution of boundary value problems in engineering fields is a complicated problem in most
applied cases and from this point of view, use of the limit state methods is very beneficial for

f S
engineers. In limit analysis method, in spite of exact solution of the problem, the upper and lower
bound of the limit load are determined. The lower bound of the exact solution can be obtained by
use of different admissible stress fields in different regions of the media divided by stress
discontinuity surfaces. Earthquakes have unfavorable effects of increasing active and decreasing

o
passive lateral earth pressure, so to investigate how the lateral earth pressure is affected, extensive
numerical results based on the limit analysis method reported by Chang and Chen. This paper is
devoted to finding an Analytical solution to investigate the lateral force affection on retaining

e
walls, using mathematical relations based on lower bound limit analysis method. This process
include the calculation of direction and magnitude of active lateral earth pressure. Numerical

i v
results of the proposed algorithm are presented in some practical dimensionless graphs.

Keywords Limit analysis, stress discontinuity surfaces, lateral pressure, retaining wall

c h 1. INTRODUCTION

Since the earthquake motion is of an oscillatory nature, dynamic analysis of lateral earth pressure is

A r
certainly more realistic. However, dynamic analysis involves many uncertainties, e.g. the extent of soil
mass effectively participating in vibrations that are not yet wholly understood.
Furthermore, providing the necessary information for a dynamic analysis and performing such an
analysis are relative expensive. Quasi-Static analysis using the seismic coefficient concept is therefore of
greater practical value in many cases, although the assessment of the seismic coefficient still relies highly
on past experiences. The well-known Mononobe-Okabe analysis of seismic lateral earth pressure was
proposed by Mononobe and Matsuo [1] and Okabe [2]. The analysis is a direct modification of the
coulomb wedge analysis. In the analysis, the earthquake effects are replaced by a quasi-static inertia force
whose magnitude is computed on the basis of the seismic coefficient concept. As in the coulomb analysis,
the failure surface is assumed planer in the Mononobe-Okabe method, regardless of the fact that the most
critical sliding surface may be curved. Similar to the coulombs, the Mononobe Okabe analysis may
underestimate the active earth pressure and overestimate the passive earth pressure. In this paper, the
lower-bound method of limit analysis is applied to include the earthquake effect which is investigated in

Received by the editors December 30, 2010; Accepted April 15, 2012.

Corresponding author

www.SID.ir
196 A. Totonchi et al.

producing some dimensionless charts for computing the seismic active earth pressure. As stated in the
lower-bound theorem, if an equilibrium state of stress below yield can be found which satisfies the stress
boundary conditions, then the loads imposed can be carried without collapse by a stable body composed of
elastic-perfectly plastic material [3, 4]. Any such field of stress thus gives a safe or lower bound on the
collapse or limit load. The stress field satisfying all these conditions is called statically admissible stress field.
In this paper, the following steps are investigated: First, the lower bound of limit analysis method and the
principles are defined. Second, the new formulations based on mathematical relations are introduced and a
comparison between the results of this new analytical algorithm and the well-known methods such as
Mononobe-Okabe is done. Finally, some practical dimensionless diagrams for calculating the active seismic
coefficient of retaining walls with considerable accuracy are presented.

2. THEOREMS OF LIMIT ANALYSIS

Figure 1 shows a typical load-displacement curve as it might be measured for a surface footing test. The

I
curve consists of an elastic portion; a region of transition from mainly elastic to mainly plastic behavior; a
D
plastic region, in which the load increases very little while the deflection increases manifold; and finally, a

f S
work-hardening region. In a case such as this, there exists no physical collapse load. However, to know the
load at which the footing will deform excessively has obvious practical importance. For this purpose,
idealizing the soil as a perfectly plastic medium and neglecting the changes in geometry lead to the condition

o
in which displacements can increase without limit while the load is held constant as shown in Fig.1. A load
computed on the basis of this ideal situation is called plastic limit load [5, 6].This hypothetical limit load usually

e
gives a good approximation to the physical plastic collapse load or the load at which deformations become

v
excessive. The methods of limit analysis furnish bounding estimates to this hypothetical limit load.

i
The theorems of limit analysis can be established directly for a general body if the body possesses the
following ideal properties:

Load

c h Work Hardening

A
Pc

r
Elastic- Plastic

Elastic
Plastic
Limit Load

Displacement

Fig. 1. Load-displacement Curve

1. The material exhibits perfect or ideal plasticity, i.e., work hardening or work softening does not
occur. This implies that the stress point cannot move outside the yield surface.
2. The yield surface is convex and the plastic strain rates are derivable from the yield function
through the associated flow rule.
3. Changes in the geometry of the body that occur at the limit load are insignificant; hence the
equations of virtual work can be applied.

In summary, the limit load is defined as the plastic collapse load of an ideal body having the ideal properties
listed above, and replacing the actual one.

IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012

www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 197

3. THE LOWER BOUND METHOD

The lower-bound method of limit analysis is different from the upper-bound method in that the equilibrium
equation and yield condition instead of the work equation and failure mechanism are considered [7, 8].
Moreover, whereas the development of the work equation from an assumed collapse mechanism is always
clear, many engineers find the construction of a plastic equilibrium stress field to be quite unrelated to physical
intuition. Without physical insight there is trouble in finding effective ways to alter the stress fields when they
do not give a close bound on the collapse or limit load [9-12]. Often the user employs the existing stress fields
from well-known texts or the more recent technical literature as a magic handbook and tries to fit his
problem to the particular solutions he finds. Intuition and innovation seem discouraged by unfamiliarity and
apparent complexity [13-14]. Although the discontinuous fields of stress which will be drawn and discussed in
this Section are simpler to visualize, they too are not often employed in an original manner by the design
engineer [15-16]. Yet the concepts are familiar to the civil engineer in his terms and can be utilized by the

D
designer as a working tool.
The conditions required to establish such a lower-bound solution are essentially as follows:

differential equation of equilibrium.

S I
a. A complete stress distribution or stress field must be found, everywhere satisfying the

b. The stress field at the boundary and discontinuities must satisfy the stress boundary

f
conditions.
The stress field must nowhere violate the yield condition.

4. ANALYTICAL SOLUTION

e o
The typical 2D wall geometry for the problem of this paper is shown in Fig. 2. Assuming a discontinuity

v
surface, Fig. 2 shows the variation of stresses in the vicinity of the wall (zone A) and beyond the

i
discontinuity surface (zone B). The final target of the calculations is leads to the evaluation of P ah and P av
which are the stresses subjected to the earthquake affected on the wall. In this solution the following
relation is assumed.

c h Cw
C
=
t an(f w )
t an(f )

r
In which, c and are known as the strength parameters of the material; c represents the cohesion and

A
represents the angle of internal friction. cw is the cohesion and w is the internal friction angle between the
wall and soil. Knowing the stresses quantities in element B, Fig. 3 is drawn.

X
Z
z
kh.z Pav
B A Pah

Zone B Zone A

Fig. 2. Stress discontinuity surface, zones A and B

The Mohr circle center and radius are considered as Sa,Sb and ra,rb respectively for zones A and B.

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir
198 A. Totonchi et al.

C.cot (x ,0)

C
r r
(z ,khz)
Mohr-coulomb Surface

Fig. 3. Assuming Sb as (x, 0)

(1)
r = (x + C . cot (f )). sin( f )

D
(2)
2 2
r = ( g.z - x ) + (K h .g.z )

Combining (1) & (2) results in:

S I
(x + c. cot (f ))2 . sin 2 (f ) = ( g .z )2 + (x )2 - (2gz ).(x ) + (k h .g z )2 (3)

Expanding Eq. (3) leads to:

o f
(x )2 (sin 2f - 1) + x (2c.cos f .sin f + 2g z ) + (c 2 .cos 2f - (kh.gz )2 ) = 0 (4)

Where

e
.As Sb and rb are calculated, the Mohr circle of zone-B is drawn (Fig. 4).

v
i

c h
A r
C.cot

Pb
r

(z ,khz)

Fig. 4. Mohr circle in zone part B

The soil is modeled by Mohr-Coulomb yield criterion with various quantities of friction angle and soil
cohesion.In a direct application of the Mohr-Coulomb criterion for plane strain stability problems, it is
implicitly assumed that the strength of the soil along the failure surface is fully mobilized everywhere
along the surface. This is probably the case in most laboratory tests in which the tested specimen is
assumed representative of a soil element in the soil mass. This is because the specimen is generally so
small that the strain is practically considered uniform along the failure surface, although boundary
restrains do exist in almost all tests. For simplicity, the effect of seepage (or pore pressures) on the
stability of cohesive-frictional soils has not been included in this study. It is also possible to incorporate
the effect of pore pressures in limit analysis [17, 18], but this extension is not being covered here. The

IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012

www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 199

position of stresses of zone B is shown in Fig. 3. The relation of Mohr circle center and radius of zone-B
can be expressed by:
In Fig. 4Pb is the pole of Mohr circle of zone-B. For computation of the angle between Pb and the
principle surface () in the Mohr-circle of zone B, using geometrical relations leads to the following
equations:

k h .g .z
t an(a ) = (5)
g.z - sb + r

Substituting rb in the above equation leads to:

K h .z
a tan 1 (6)
z s (z s ) 2 ( K .z ) 2
b b h

I D
f S
o

C.cot
w
b
e
w o 2

sa
c

v
a

h i d
Fig. 5. Assumed Mohr circle in zone part A

the following equations:

r c
Dismounting the wall specifications, the Mohr-circle of zone-A is drawn (Fig (5)). Using Fig (5) results in

ac
=
bc
(7)

A
sin(r w ) sin( m)

ac oc oc. sin(f w ) (8)

= sin(m) =
sin(f w ) sin( m) ac

dc oc
=
sin(f ) sin(90)

dc = bc
bc oc
\ =
sin(f ) 1

bc (9)
sin(f ) =
oc
Combining (4) & (6) results in:

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir
200 A. Totonchi et al.

ac ac oc
sin( r w ) = . sin( m) sin( r w ) = . . sin(f w )
bc bc ac

oc
sin( r w ) = . sin(f w )
bc

sin(f w ) (10)
sin( r w ) =
sin(f )

r w = 2d + f w

rw - f w (11)
d=
2

D
Considering as an angle through zone-A stresses surface and principle surface, the rotation angle of

I
stresses from zone A to B will become:

f S
o 2 Sa
C.cot w =

Pb

v e r

h i
Fig. 6. recognition for calculating the rotation angle of stresses from zone B to A

c
rw - f w
b = d= (12)
2

From Figs. 5 and 6,

A r
is defined as the following equation (Fig (7)):

Substituting and in the above equation leads to:

dq = b - a

rw - f w kh .g.z
dq = - t an - 1( ) (13)
2 g.z - sb + r

In which is rotation angle of stresses from zone B toA. Using the relation between the two center points
of the Mohr-circles of zones A and B, reported by Chen and Chung [19], following equations are derived.

sb + c. cot (f ) cos(dq - r )
= (14)
sa + c. cot (f ) cos(dq + r )

sin( r ) = cos(dq). sin(f )

(15)

ra = (sa + c. cot ( f )). sin(f )

(16)
IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012
www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 201

(Pah, Pav)

w Pb (z, khz)

Pa
Zone A Zone B

Fig. 7. recognition (rotation angle of stresses from zone B to A)

Knowing the quantities of the r a and Sa, Mohr-circle of element A is drawn. According to Fig.8,

I D
depicted by a line through the intersection point of circles (M) and pole B (Pb) and extending it, the pole of
the Mohr-circle in zone A appears, which leads to attaining the target.
In summary, the calculation algorithm of pah is defined as follows:

1- Calculation of Sb, rb and using Eqs. (2), (4) and (6).

f S
2- Calculation of using Eq. (12).

o
3- Determining the rotation angle between the Mohr-circles (=-) then use of Eqs. (14) and (16) for
calculation of Sa and ra, respectively.

e
v
4- Drawing the Mohr-circles, finding the pole of the element in zone A which leads to the calculation of
pah.

h i
The next section discusses the comparison of this mathematical solution and Mononobe-Okabe
Method which results in some tables and graphs.

r c
A (Pah, Pav)
M

Sa Sb

C.cot (z, khz)
Pb ra
rb
Pa

Fig. 8. Computation of active seismic stresses on retaining wall

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir
202 A. Totonchi et al.

5. COMPARISON BETWEEN RESULTS

The Mononobe-Okabe analysis [20, 21], which is an extension of the coulombs analysis, has been
experimentally proved by Mononobe-Matsuo [4, 6] to be effective in assessing the seismic active earth
pressure. It is generally adopted in the current a seismic design of rigid retaining walls. The Mononobe-
Okabe solution is therefore practically acceptable, at least for the active pressure case, although its
applicability to the passive pressure is somewhat in doubt.
In this section, some results on seismic active pressures as obtained by the present Analytical method
are comparedwith the method ofMononobe-Okabe (M-O), which leads to tables 1 to 4. Comparing the
current results with these methods, good agreement is found among them.
In the following tables, kh is horizontal seismic coefficient, is friction angle between the wall and
soil in the Mononobe-Okabe method and KAE is active seismic lateral pressure coefficient.

D
Table 1. Comparison of KAE for C=0, w=/2, Kh=0.15, Kv=.075, H=5 m, =17.6 kN/m3

I
KAE KAE
Analytical

S
w M-O
Solution
10 5 0.928 0.926
16
20
26
28
8
10
13
14
0.697

o
0.598
0.481
0.448
f 0.693
0.598
0.481
0.446
30 15

e
0.417 0.416

iv
32 16 0.389 0.386
36 18 0.337 0.337
38 19 0.313 0.311
40

c h 20 0.292 0.292

Table 2. Comparison of KAEfor C=0, w=/2, H=5 m, =17.6 kN/m3

A r Kh

0.1

30
w

15
M-O

0.373
KAE
Analytical
solution
0.373
0.2 30 15 0.467 0.466
0.3 30 15 0.595 0.595
0.1 10 5 0.795 0.795
0.2 10 5 1.036 1.036
0.3 10 5 0.996 0.996
0.1 40 20 0.257 0.257
0.2 40 20 0.33 0.33
0.3 40 20 0.425 0.425

So it has been found that the application of limit analysis forcohesionless soil stability problems is
practically acceptable. The determination of the seismic lateral earth pressure of a fill on a retaining wall,
when frictional forces act on the back of the wall, is solved conveniently by this analytical method.

IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012

www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 203

As seen, the results of Analytical solution and Mononobe-Okabe are practically identical for most
cases. By checking the results of Chung & Chen, which are based on upper bound method of limit
analysis, it seems that the exact result has a negligible difference with the results of this method.

Table 3. Comparison of KAEfor C=0, w=/2=15o, H=5 m, =17.6 kN/m3

Analytical Chen and

Kh M-O
Solution Chung

0.1 0.373 0.373 0.4

0.2 0.466 0.467 0.49

0.3 0.595 0.595 0.62

Table 4.Comparison of active lateral pressure for =30o, =18 kN/m3

I D
C(kPa) Z(Meter)

0
Rankin

-11.489
S
Analytical

f
-11.455

o
10
10 47.91 47.788
0 -22.978 -22.97

e
20
10 36.421 36.419

v
0 -34.467 -34.454
30

i
10 24.932 24.912

c h
6. NUMERICAL RESULTS

The lower bound solutions obtained can be applied directly in practice and one of the most usable

A r
applications of this study is the possibility of introducing some practical dimensionless diagrams for
calculating the active seismic lateral pressure coefficient of retaining walls with considerable accuracy.
Figures 9 to 11 illustrate the active seismic lateral force in various quantities of friction angle and cohesion
of the soil and soil-wall. The dimensionless parameters presented are defined as:
l = gH / c

P ' = P / Hc

Where is soil unit weight, H is the wall height, c is the cohesion of the soil fill at the back of the wall and
P is the seismic lateral force which affects the wall. For each seismic coefficient, the results for three
different of 3, 5 and 10 are given. To account for the effect of cw and wthe results are presented in terms
of cw of 0.2, 0.3 and 0.8. As Figs. 9 to 11 show, by increasing the soil friction angle, the seismic active
force is decreased, as expected. Comparing Figures, it seems that for a given the active seismic force will
increase with increasing cw/c. Also, it seems that increasing in and kh, leads to increase the seismic lateral
force (P).

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir
204 A. Totonchi et al.

I D
f S
e o
Fig. 9. Dimensionless diagram for calculating the active seismic lateral force, Kh=0.1

i v
c h
A r

Fig. 10. Dimensionless diagram for calculating the active seismic lateral force, Kh=0.2

IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012

www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 205

Fig. 11. Dimensionless diagram for calculating the active seismic lateral force, Kh=0.3

I D
f S
e o
i v
Fig. 11. Dimensionless diagram for calculating the active seismic lateral force, Kh=0.3, (Continue)

c h
7. EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION

Now, how the results in Figs. 9 to 11 can be used to determine the seismic active lateral force is
illustrated.

A r
Problem. A wall is built back of a soil which has the following parameters, the height of the wall H=5
m, the soil unit weightis =15 kN/m3, the soils strength parameters c=10kN/m2, =30 and the soil-
wallcohesion cw=5 kN/m2. For a seismic coefficient of kh=0.1, what is the amount of seismic active
lateral force?
A procedure for using the results of the presented study to solve the forgoing problem can be
summarized as follows:
1- From the value of , H and c, the dimensionless parameter =H/c= 7.5 is calculated.
2- With kh=0.1 and cw/c=0.5, it follows that the results presented in Fig. 9a should be used to
determine the force.
3- In Fig. 9a, a straight-vertical line passing through =7.5 is drawn. This straight line will intersect
with three curves from which the intersection point of curve with =30 and cw/c=0.5 is selected.
4- From this intersection point, it can back-figure the following dimensionless parameter P from
which the lower bound solution of the seismic active force can be calculated as P= -11.23kN/m.

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir
206 A. Totonchi et al.

8. CONCLUSION

The active seismic lateral pressure on the retaining wall is investigated in this paper. An Analytical
solution is introduced based on lower bound limit analysis method and the solution is compared to the
well-known methods such as Mononobe- Okabe and Chung and Chen, whose results are close to each
other. Some practical dimensionless diagrams for calculating the active seismic coefficient of retaining
walls with considerable accuracy are presented. The results show that by increasing the soil friction angle,
the seismic active force is decreased, as expected. Comparing diagrams, it seems that for a given =H/c
the active seismic force will increase with increasing cw/c. Also, it is found that an increase in and kh,
leads to an increase in the seismic lateral force.

NOMENCLATURES
c cohesion

D
cw cohesion between soil and wall
internal friction angle
w

z
Pav
Pah
internal friction angle between soil and wall
soil unit weight
height
vertical active seismic lateral pressure
horizontal active seismic lateral pressure
S I
Sa
Sb
ra
rb
Pa
center point of Mohr-circle in zone A
center point of Mohr-circle in zone B
radius of Mohr-circle in zone A
radius of Mohr-circle in zone B
pole of zone-A
o f
Pb

pole of zone-B
angle between Pb and the principle surface

v
angle between Pa and the principle surface
e

M
Kh

Seismic coefficient
dimensionless parameter =H/c

h i
rotation angle of stresses from zone B to A
Intersection of Mohr-circles

c
P seismic lateral force
p dimensionless parameter =p/Hc

1.
A r REFERENCES

Mononobe, N. & Matsou, H. (1929). On the determination of earth pressure during earthquake. Proceedings,
World Engineering Congress, p. 9.
2. Okabe, S. (1926). General theory of earth pressure. Journal of the Japan Society of Civil Engineering, Vol. 12,
No. 1.
3. Collins, I. F. (2005). Elastic/plastic models for soils and sands. Int. J. Mech. Sci. Vol. 47, pp. 493508.
4. Drucker, D. C. & Prager, W. (1952). Soil mechanics and plastic analysis for limit design. Quart. Appl. Math.,
Vol. 10, pp. 157165.
5. Burland, J. B., Rampello, S., Georgiannou, V. N. & Calabresi, G. (1996). A laboratory study of the strength of
four stiff clays. Geotechnique, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 491514.
6. Chen, W. F. & Han, D. J. (1988). Plasticity for structural engineering. Springer, New York.
7. Atkinson, J. H. (1981). Foundation and slopes, an introduction to applications of critical state soil mechanics.
McGraw-Hill Company.
8. Kramer, S. L. (1996). Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Uni. of Washington, Prentice Hall

IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2 August 2012

www.SID.ir
 Analytical solution of seismic active lateral force in 207

9. Drucker, D. C., Prager, W. & Greenberg, H. J. (1952). Extended limit design theorems for continuous media.
Quart. Appl. Math., Vol. 9, pp. 381389.
10. Fleck, N. A. & Hutchinson, J. W. (1993). A phenomenological theory for strain gradient effects in plasticity. J.
Mech. Phys. Solids, Vol. 41, No. 12, pp. 18251857.
11. Toupin, R. A. (1962). Elastic materials with couple stresses. Arch. Ration. Mech., Vol. 11, pp. 385414.
12. Vardoulakis, I. & Graf, B. (1985). Calibration of constitutive models for granular materials using data from
biaxial experiments. Geotechnique, Vol. 35, pp. 299317.
13. Vardoulakis, J., Labuz, J. F., Papamichos, E. & Tronvoll, J. (1998). Continuum fracture mechanics of uniaxial
compression on brittle materials. Int. J. Solids Struct., Vol. 35, Nos. 3132, pp. 43134335.
14. Zhao, J. D., Sheng, D. C. & Zhou, W. Y. (2005). Shear banding analysis of geomaterials by strain gradient
enhanced damage model. Int. J. Solids Struct. Vol. 42, No. 20, pp. 53355355.
15. Li, A.J. & Lyamin, A. V. (2009). Seismic rock slope stability charts based on limit analysis methods. Computers
and Geotechnics, Vol. 36, pp. 135-148

I D
16. Merifield, R. S. & Lyamin, A. V. (2006). Limit analysis solutions for the bearing capacity of rock masses using
the generalized HoekBrown criterion. International Journal of Rock Mechanic Mining Science, Vol. 43, pp.
92037.
17.

18.

f S
Anvar, S. A. & Gharamani, A. (1997). Equilibrium equations on zero extension lines and its application to soil
engineering. Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, Transaction B, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 11-34
Jahanandish, M. & Eslami haghighat, A. (2004). Analysis of Boundary value problems in soil Plasticity
Assuming Non-Coaxiality. Iranian Journal of Science & Technology, Transaction B, Iranian Journal of Science

19.
20.
& Technology, Transaction B, Vol. 28, No. B5.

o
Chen, W. F. & Liu, X. L. (1990). Limit analysis in soil mechanics. West Lafayette.

e
Hack, R. Alkema, N. & Luzi, L. (2007). Influence of earthquakes on the stability of slopes. Eng. Geol., Vol. 91,

v
pp. 415.

i
21. Shou, K. J. & Wang, C. F. (2003). Analysis of the Chiufengershan landslide triggered by the 1999 Chi-Chi
earthquake in Taiwan. Eng. Geol., Vol. 68, pp. 23750.

c h
A r

August 2012 IJST, Transactions of Civil Engineering, Volume 36, Number C2

www.SID.ir